Even with the added preparation, the agency did worse than it has in the past. Federal officials found problems in seven of the 24 categories reviewed, more issues than the previous three reviews combined.

In 2003 and 2006, the FTA found no problems and in 2009 found one issue.

Two of the findings in this year’s review were that the district had improperly used $547,000 of federal grant money earmarked for preventive maintenance to purchase fuel and had not reached its target for awarding contracts to disadvantaged businesses.

North County Transit officials now say they believe the decision to bring in New Jersey-based Mundle & Associates was beneficial and fiscally prudent not just for this review, but to improve the district’s operations moving forward.

“I’d go even further and say that we are preparing to conduct business in an appropriate way and in a compliant manner, not just pass a review,” said Ryan Bailey, North County Transit’s chief financial officer. “The FTA review is just a spot check they make on agencies. Our ultimate goal is to conduct business according to the guidelines and regulations that we have to as a recipient of FTA grant money, and that is something that happens around the clock, not just during a review.”

North County Transit officials first awarded Mundle & Associates a $30,000 contract to conduct a mock audit in January. The mock audit produced findings that the district said it would use to prepare for the real review.

Three months later, Tucker asked the board, and received, permission to increase the contract with the New Jersey-based firm by $127,000. The extended contract runs until Dec. 31.

The review was conducted from Aug. 13-15. The transit agency has resolved four of the seven issues found in the review, and has until Dec. 17 to resolve the other three. Bailey said the district has resolved the outstanding issues, including reimbursing the FTA the grant money, which the FTA in turn will reissue to the district at a later date for proper use.

Bailey said that FTA reviews look back over the three years between reviews, so the consultant couldn’t have fixed all of the issues, such as the misuse of grant funds.

“The contract itself was to help get the district complying with requirements. What it did not do was go back and change history,” Bailey said.

Bailey also said the district couldn’t judge its performance against previous reports because the reviews are subjective in nature due to the varying preferences of each inspector.

“I am not trying to knock the process, but a review doesn’t necessarily mean a situation doesn’t exist or does,” Bailey said. “Something might not have been uncovered in a previous review or the process might have been done in a different manner.”

Mundle & Associates, on its website, says that it has worked with more than 100 transit agencies nationwide, including agencies in Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Francisco. According to the website, the firm has been “extensively involved in conducting regulatory compliance reviews of federal grant recipients for the FTA” and has “provided extensive technical assistance to FTA and its grantees through developing training materials... and resources.”

Company representatives declined to comment.

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System officials said they do not use a consultant to prepare for the FTA review. The agency passed with no deficiencies in 2006, 2009 and 2012.